retro gamer! bit live report

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 20/10/2004 - 20:04

You know, Retro Gamer has been a bit of a disappointment to me, I think, overall.

Chris

merman · Post by **merman** » 21/10/2004 - 8:40

Matrix wrote:So they chopped it from the coverdisc and printed it in the mag, or they chopped it altogether ?

It's featured twice in the article - on the first page as part of the "title" spread, and then in full at the top of the second page. It's not on the coverdisk, which is a disappointment.

Chris Abbott wrote:You know, Retro Gamer has been a bit of a disappointment to me, I think, overall.

It's better than gamesTM and its pitiful retro coverage, and it's written by people who actually CARE about retrogaming... like me

Chris, something else they cut was the audience comments (and they are very funny) - would you like them for http://www.backintimelive.com ?

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 21/10/2004 - 8:44

That would be nice. I'll make them the only thing on the page *LOL*

Chris

Kenz · Post by **Kenz** » 21/10/2004 - 8:44

I was thinking about updating the BitLive page cos I've almost finished the lil' prezzie I was working on for the sponsors - so I can add a quotes section while I do that if ya like ... If Chris wants them included of course.

Which I'm sure he will.

Cos he's a nice man.

A very nice man.

A very, very nice man.

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 21/10/2004 - 8:47

> A very, very nice man.
And oooooh sooooo amateur...

Subzero · Post by **Subzero** » 21/10/2004 - 9:10

My subscription ended at issue 8, might pick up this issue just for the bitlive report, but the magazine has gotten a bit shit over the last few issues.......

Matrix · Post by **Matrix** » 22/10/2004 - 1:34

Just so i have a handle on this from a totally selfish point of view (and that of the cartoon artist involved), neither our URL's or names are in the article ? I hope thats not the case... i feel a few hot phone calls coming along...

Its ok to do stuff for free, but when ur credits and links get ripped out too, well that totally takes the piss... ppl who do stuff for free are leaning on the fact that their names get noticed for their hard work in the hope of getting noticed themselves.... talk about being taken advantage of. Thing is if i pursue this (in a worst case scenario) It could backfire on Mr Fisher... im really in 2 minds about all thsi now since i expressley stated that the poster was not to be used without credits.

Ok i know im starting to look like a mean bitch about now, but you cant blame me for starting to feel a tad annoyed with Retro Gamer in all of this. I mean, when you cant even get a credit for your work in a national mag theres sumthin wrong - what like they cant even spare 3 lines of text or a credits overlay ?

I feel like scanning in all their mag contents, removing all their names and selling em on cd for a profit... same thing but on a larger scale ! - Ohhh i hope some1 from Retro mag reads this, i feel so totally pissed off right now !! - Ill be watching for it on the news-stands..... I am NOT a happy chappie atm.

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 22/10/2004 - 7:18

I'm with you Matrix: it's either thoughtless and rude behaviour, or it's mean and spiteful behaviour. Frankly I'd tend towards thoughtless.

Chris

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 22/10/2004 - 7:20

> Thing is if i pursue this (in a worst case scenario) It could backfire
> on Mr Fisher.
Can't see why.

"We got into trouble because we removed links from your article: we're never using you again" - it doesn't make sense.

Chris

beyond · Post by **beyond** » 22/10/2004 - 7:51

Editor: "We got some phone heat from one of Mr. Fisher's friends - take him off the freelancers list." --?

Cheetor · Post by **Cheetor** » 22/10/2004 - 8:56

Speaking from a neutral point of view and as a freelancer myself who's worked with magazines over the years (and who's doing some stuff for Retro Gamer for a series of pieces in the future), it all depends on the agreement with the artwork and the mention for the links.

At the end of the day, anything that appears in the text itself is left in at the discretion of the editor and if they feel that the writer is simply plugging something for a friend for no reason then they have the right to remove something - whether it's a paragraph of text, a comment, or a weblink.

With the artwork and the agreement to include the link in return for the use of it, it depends on how this agreement was made. If this was made with the writer, then this agreement should also have been made with Martyn Carroll (Retro Gamer's editor) PRIOR to the article being accepted and ackowledgement of this being received by the writer.

Alternatively, the agreement for use of the artwork and a reciprocal link should have been made directly between the artist and Retro Gamer.

I know this sounds harsh, but with freelance work, writers are generally expected to provide artwork to go with features where possible unless stock images are available or press images can be provided (I've supplied about 90% of the artwork for all my work over the last 10 years including photographic work) and if the writer passed this onto Retro Gamer then it was acceptable for Retro Gamer to assume that the image was to be used without any credits needing to be stated in the body text unless agreed in advance.

Just my views, but it's what I've found to be the way publishers work as standard. I know I've probably pissed off a few people saying that, but I think a simple email to Martyn before sending the article to him would have cleared all that up in advance.

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 22/10/2004 - 9:02

All I can say to that is: if he wants to enforce a standard set of rules for the publishing industry, then that's his right. But he's taking advantage of the scene for free stuff, and not fulfilling his end of the bargain. In a magazine like Retro Gamer, links, credits and mentions are everything: we get f*ck all money, after all! And by removing them, the magazine is sticking two fingers up at the people who helped him. I don't care if it's standard practice: what that means is that standard practice stinks by any other standards. It's all "OK, I've got my text, and I don't care about the rest". Pah. That's not a wise thing to do when most of your target audience seems to be contributing in some way!

* edit: although I do agree with Cheetor in that there should have been an agreement about this between the writer and the magazine *

Chris

Kenz · Post by **Kenz** » 22/10/2004 - 9:19

I've just checked the article in the mag and you CAN see the URLs for Andrew and Sandra on the second version of the poster. They obviously loved it so much they used it twice.

Plus they also include an exra caption which clearly credits Andy and Sandra - nu URLs in it though.

Not ideal but better than nowt.

(No mention of ickle old me anywhere - there goes my ego fix for the day)

Cheetor · Post by **Cheetor** » 22/10/2004 - 9:22

I can see where you're coming from on that one Chris, but for all Martyn knows, the artwork was publicly available images or the artist had been paid for his work and the writer was just giving his friend a plug (assumptions, I know, but with the editor not knowing he has to stick to the company line).

There's no way of knowing exactly *what* Martyn knows about the situation or ownership of the artwork or whether it was paid work or not. For all he knows, it was commissioned paid work by BIT Live. Also, with it being made available publicly for people to use to promote the event it becomes a grey area again in terms of its usage. Also, it depends on what was said to the art department when they were putting the mag together and whether anything was lost along the way there (a credit/link could have been indicated to go with the picture as a caption, for example).

Slightly side-tracking there (but to illustrate the point with cock-ups with art departments as well), when I was working for Amiga Pro, I did a feature on Almathera (remember them?!) and I sent them a massive pile of CD covers and artwork to be scanned in and the sods lost the whole lot!

Dealing with magazines is a legal minefield - I've been doing it for a decade and even now I still can't figure the buggers out completely!! lol

Simon

* EDIT - I typed this while Kenz replied! Doh! *

merman · Post by **merman** » 22/10/2004 - 11:09

As Kenz said, it does credit Matrix and Sandra but no URL's.

I am disappointed myself by what happened, but I will say this to clarify:

1) I offered to write the article
2) Martyn accepted, gave me 2500 words
3) I started to write the article, needed more space
4) Martyn said he could give me 3500, no more
5) I got the interview with PPOT right before the deadline, and edited it down to fit the whole thing into 3500
6) The article is published, and it's roughly 2500 - I'm guessing there was a lack of space.

I'm not happy that the "web links" section was cut, because as I said before it meant that people didn't know about important places like Remix64, SLAY Radio and the SID Ringtones site...
I will try to rectify this by getting the URLs in a news piece ASAP